Subpage under development, new version coming soon!
¡¡¡Tema cerrado!!!
Asunto: »Political & economic ideologies (communism, capitalism et
I have the naturale right to have Canada for my own!!! for example!
Do you even know what natural right means? Natural rights are inalienable rights of ALL human beings. Not all human beings can own Canada, so that can never be a natural right.
but reality is that I have no rights until there are some (real) strenght to avoid it.
Wrong. The rights are there, even if they are not enforcable. They are useless then, but they still exist.
in fact you see that there are no problems for those states that doesn't respect them.
You really don't understand the concept of natural rights. Of course those rights are being violated all over the world. In Syria or Afghanistan, but also in Belgium and Italy.
Do you even know what natural right means? Natural rights are inalienable rights of ALL human beings. Not all human beings can own Canada, so that can never be a natural right.
but reality is that I have no rights until there are some (real) strenght to avoid it.
Wrong. The rights are there, even if they are not enforcable. They are useless then, but they still exist.
in fact you see that there are no problems for those states that doesn't respect them.
You really don't understand the concept of natural rights. Of course those rights are being violated all over the world. In Syria or Afghanistan, but also in Belgium and Italy.
Do you even know what natural right means? Natural rights are inalienable rights of ALL human beings. Not all human beings can own Canada, so that can never be a natural right.
that shows you miss the example's sense..
the rights are there, even if they are not enforcable.
LOL (that the first thing you study in a law class)
and so what IS a right? (claiming Canada for my own?)
They are useless then, but they still exist.
So you prefer to use the word "right" for a useless sense, than to use it for its real value..
you're unbelievable..
You really don't understand the concept of natural rights.
you are wrong, I understand so good them.
I understand even Santa Claus, but still don't believe him.. (and that's the best example we can do for something someone imagine and write about, but has no reality at all!!! : P )
that shows you miss the example's sense..
the rights are there, even if they are not enforcable.
LOL (that the first thing you study in a law class)
and so what IS a right? (claiming Canada for my own?)
They are useless then, but they still exist.
So you prefer to use the word "right" for a useless sense, than to use it for its real value..
you're unbelievable..
You really don't understand the concept of natural rights.
you are wrong, I understand so good them.
I understand even Santa Claus, but still don't believe him.. (and that's the best example we can do for something someone imagine and write about, but has no reality at all!!! : P )
I'm going to talk to a wall now, it will make more sense than you.
Note to myself: Stop discussing with idiots.
Note to myself: Stop discussing with idiots.
argument ended.
Poor little guy, caught in a speech he can't stand..
I will not call moderators for your insults.
but I want you to remember,
Santa Claus doesn't exist.
And even "natural rights" are not real...
Muahahahahahahahaahh!
:D
Poor little guy, caught in a speech he can't stand..
I will not call moderators for your insults.
but I want you to remember,
Santa Claus doesn't exist.
And even "natural rights" are not real...
Muahahahahahahahaahh!
:D
No it's not. At least Americans should know there's a different approach to the government. Founding Fathers, anyone?
WHAT is meant by this? are you referring to the US Founding Fathers? are you using the Founding Fathers as a way to say that government should not tax?
WHAT is meant by this? are you referring to the US Founding Fathers? are you using the Founding Fathers as a way to say that government should not tax?
Note to myself: Stop discussing with idiots.
Wanna bet?
Wanna bet?
I'm going to try it, I'm not saying I will succeed.
you just wanted to offend someone
lets see, the USA produces 9.97% of the worlds oil, and we are 'nasty gimmeoil' country'?
in 2011 the US produced 29.8% of the oil it consumed.
in 2011 Croatia produced 11.9% of the oil it consumed.
From that context, I fail to see your point.
in 2011 the US produced 29.8% of the oil it consumed.
in 2011 Croatia produced 11.9% of the oil it consumed.
From that context, I fail to see your point.
i mean the entertainment, i hope not hear german, chinese ever
lets see, the USA produces 9.97% of the worlds oil, and we are 'nasty gimmeoil' country'?
in 2011 the US produced 29.8% of the oil it consumed.
in 2011 Croatia produced 11.9% of the oil it consumed.
From that context, I fail to see your point.
get a shitty cereals horinca, transform percents in quantities, and then thou'll see his point
in 2011 the US produced 29.8% of the oil it consumed.
in 2011 Croatia produced 11.9% of the oil it consumed.
From that context, I fail to see your point.
get a shitty cereals horinca, transform percents in quantities, and then thou'll see his point
dennis...US army is so huge and there are so many weapons and equipments and ammo that US just need war to have their modern army updated. And it is much better if the war can bring some economics benefits.
For example, wars in middle east are not just for oil....it is very important region where russia has big influence and it is problem too...
Look on war reason in last years:
1. Iraq - Saddam wanted start selling oil not for dollar but for another currency or currencies. If he succeed and some countries join him US economy would have collapse via weak dollar. So you stop them but nobody know this is US, I suppose. The war was easy to start cos there are economics benefits if US win it (contracts, companies and so...) and lowering russia influence .
2. Syria. There is very important oil/or gas cube in that region. It will be second stable route to europe so russia will lost its power on some countries via russian gas/oil. So Saudi wanted help US to help start them war and made that country unstable. I suppose that there were no benefits for US to start there war, just one maybe, next country close to Iran :-). So Saudi make fail chemical attack to make it much easier for Obama start there war. This time Europe stop it, or Russia.
3. Lybia... same problem with dollar and also, Quaddafi stop buying some french war products :-D
So oil is important and US is makeing war cos of it, but oil was never the only one reason, it just help start there a war faster :-)
For example, wars in middle east are not just for oil....it is very important region where russia has big influence and it is problem too...
Look on war reason in last years:
1. Iraq - Saddam wanted start selling oil not for dollar but for another currency or currencies. If he succeed and some countries join him US economy would have collapse via weak dollar. So you stop them but nobody know this is US, I suppose. The war was easy to start cos there are economics benefits if US win it (contracts, companies and so...) and lowering russia influence .
2. Syria. There is very important oil/or gas cube in that region. It will be second stable route to europe so russia will lost its power on some countries via russian gas/oil. So Saudi wanted help US to help start them war and made that country unstable. I suppose that there were no benefits for US to start there war, just one maybe, next country close to Iran :-). So Saudi make fail chemical attack to make it much easier for Obama start there war. This time Europe stop it, or Russia.
3. Lybia... same problem with dollar and also, Quaddafi stop buying some french war products :-D
So oil is important and US is makeing war cos of it, but oil was never the only one reason, it just help start there a war faster :-)